Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly marks the operation as read-only ('Read'), reveals the JOIN-to-pecks resolution behavior for receiver, and states the exact return fields. This is strong transparency for a simple read tool, though it does not discuss ordering or empty-result behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, filters are summarized compactly, and the output columns are listed efficiently. Every sentence contributes useful information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simple parameter set, full schema descriptions, and absence of an output schema, the description is complete enough: it states the resource, all filter options, the JOIN context, and the exact return columns. No critical operational detail needed to call the tool correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description mostly restates the same meanings (e.g., receiver is 'the tipped post's author', context_txid is 'which post was tipped') rather than adding substantial new semantics beyond the schema, which is the baseline for full coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read on-chain payments / tips.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling list, none of which cover payments, and enumerates the filter dimensions and returned columns, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage: use this tool when you need payment or tip records, optionally filtered by sender, receiver, or context_txid. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, leaving the selection guidance to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.